http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/1...hy-football-does-not-have-openly-gay-players/ An article here that shows how this campain is needed Why dont we have gay tigers ? oh we do according to other clubs, all those doing the mauled thing
Ssshh. you're not allowed to even say the p word for fear of *thread closure. *unless a mod is involved in the discussion then it will remain open.
So, basically we're all agreed there are no valid reasons why a player should decline to wear the laces. Which none of them would have done anyway.
No, if they choose not to then thats perfectly acceptable for me. If you choose to decide that another player is homophobic because he doesn't want to wear rainbow laces then thats probably your problem for assuming.
I think it's fair to say that, if a player refuses to wear them, it's more than likely to be because he's not supportive of the anti-homophobia campaign. I believe you're playing Devil's Advocate somewhat here, Charlie.
As there's already religious posts on here and this is a very touchy topic for religious people, can we just have the thread closed before more posters decide to come out?
Peter Clayton, who chairs the FA's "Homophobia in Football" working group have argued that clubs prevent players from "coming out" as footballers have an increasing commercial market value which may be damaged "I've had players over the years who were single and read books and so others [other players] said they must be gay...I think being openly gay would be something very difficult to live with in football.... You can get drunk and beat up your wife and that's quite acceptable, but if someone were to say 'I'm gay', it's considered awful. It's ridiculous." —Former manager Alan Smith speaking on 'the last taboo in football' "It's a very sad state of affairs. But it's a fact that homophobia in football is as strong now as it was 10 years ago. If you'd asked me in 2000 whether I thought we'd have a famous, openly gay footballer by 2010 I would have said yes. —Max Clifford says why he would and has advised gay players to stay closeted a sad state of affairs
I still can't quite imagine, apart from some misguided r*l*g*on defence, what reason any player would offer for declining to take part in something as innocent as wearing coloured laces, though.
Then you assume too much imo. If they were to come out wearing an I hate gays t-shirt then yes assume that but by not wearing rainbow laces no. No, I am not playing devils advocate.
Choosing not to participate in no way indicates that an individual is not in agreement with the cause. I don't, knowingly, donate to cancer research charities. This doesn't mean I don't support cancer research. It's all about choice. Assuming what other's choices indicate could make you appear a little narrow minded. Which, ironically, is exactly what homophobes are.
No one fears homosexuals nor homosexuality, so the very word is nonsensical. It is used to assign a pejorative to another in lieu of a principled argument which, frankly, is the standard M.O. if modern progressives.
"In no way" - that's plainly nonsense. If they are asked to wear the laces, and they say no, why would they do that if they are supportive of the campaign? It costs them nothing, it causes them no harm, and it's a simple thing to do. The only reason anyone would decline is if, for some reason, they are not supportive of the campaign. That may not mean they are homophobic. It could be that they have misgivings in some way about the way the campaign is orchestrated, or some other objection. But in any case, there is no way you can both support the campaign AND refuse to do the one thing the campaign is asking. That's nothing to do with "assumptions" - it's simply contradictory.
